In view of today's Public Hearing on future patent policy in Europe organised by the EU Commission, the European Patent Office has published three more statements:
The EPO's reply to the Commission's questionnaire on the patent system in Europe; and
The English and German versions of the brochure 'The London Agreement: European patents and the cost of translations' as PDF files.
It does not come as a surprise that the EPO appears not to support any projects of establishing mutual recognition of national patents:
"[...] The concept of mutual recognition of national patents appears unclear and problematic.
First, forcible legal grounds stand in the way of such a scheme:
To allow the recognition in all EU Member States of national patents following an unspecified "approval" procedure by the EPO, an additional transfer of sovereign rights, going beyond the existing arrangement in the EPC, from EU Member States to the European Patent Organisation would be necessary. This would require a revision of the EPC, which all 31 EPC Contracting States would have to ratify even though only the group of EU Member States would be concerned.
For mutual recognition at the level of the EU Member States - with or without participation of the EPO - an adequate legal instrument would also have to be found. Whether Community law provides a proper basis for this must be further studied.
The centralised European patent granting procedure to which the Member States of the European Patent Organisation have agreed enables applicants who so wish to seek Europe-wide patent protection in 31 states, on the basis of one application, processed in one of the three official languages, after a full search and examination by highly specialised patent examiners. This centralised European route coexists with national granting or registration procedures. To devise an additional route for obtaining patent protection in Europe via a mutual recognition scheme would add considerably to the complexity of the patent system in Europe without bringing any tangible benefits for users of the patent system or the public.
Second, the functioning of such a scheme would not be satisfactory:
For the time being, the patent offices of the 25 EU Member States carry out procedures ranging from simple registration of incoming applications to full search and examination. Even patent offices with search and examination systems differ considerably as to size and capacity. To ensure that national patents which were to be recognised Europe-wide would satisfy certain uniform standards, the EPO would have to carry out a complete re-examination of the applications. This would not lead to efficiency in the patent granting process in Europe."
Mr. Pompidou, after having set out that his main message today is that we owe all innovative businesses in Europe a strong patent system because a strong patent system fosters innovation, which in turn nurtures economic growth, and because the key to our future lies in an economy based not on raw materials but on the knowledge, ingenuity and creativity of our peoples, and after argiung that the overwhelming majority of the European patent system's users are smaller applicants filing between one and five applications per year in, as he expressed it, 'uncontroversial' fields of technology, he further stresses the aspect of quality control with regard to substantial examination:
"[...] The European Patent Office has focussed even more on quality in recent times. To that effect a comprehensive quality management system has been established which provides for an independent control of the work done by EPO examiners through the EPO's internal audit. [...]"
And, he is determined to cut translation costs:
"[...] Patent protection must be affordable – in particular we should avoid unnecessary costs such as translation costs.
The first breakthrough was achieved in 1973 when the three-language regime of the European Patent Convention was agreed: that solution
made daily work at the EPO feasible at all and
made the publication of all applications at 18 months a formidable vehicle for the dissemination – worldwide – of technological information, in three languages – English, German or French.
For the post-grant phase, Europe must now move away from the requirement for full translation of all patents in all languages.
And this second breakthrough is within reach: if the London Agreement enters into force, post-grant translation costs will be slashed, not least for the benefit of the "silent majority" I referred to a moment ago – those who have the potential to file more but refrain from doing so on account of prohibitive costs."
And, not to forget legal security:
"[...] Legal security must be improved: an efficient, European court system must be established so that patent proprietors, their competitors, potential licensees or future infringers will all know that, if it comes to a dispute involving one of the 750 000 European patents granted to date by the EPO, one common court will rule.
We must put an end
to parallel litigation involving the same European patent, and thus
to the high costs, cross-border issues, forum shopping and legal uncertainty – due to diverging national decisions and long delays – which today distort the rules of the game.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the draft European Patent Litigation Agreement must be submitted to an intergovernmental conference as soon as possible. [...]"
Time will come to get a more complete picture of the full set of statements as given on today's event in Brussels by the other invited speakers.
[UPDATE 2006-07-13] See also Mr. McCreevy's press release Public Discussion on Future Patent Policy in Europe comprising his yesterday's speech (Mr. Charlie McCreevy, European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services: Closing remarks at public hearing on future patent policy Public Discussion on Future Patent Policy in Europe, Brussels, 12 July 2006).
Feel free to contact PA Axel H Horns via e-mail
horns@ipjur.com. BEWARE: DO NOT SEND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION UNENCRYPTED VIA E-MAIL. USE OF ENCRYPTION SOFTWARE IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. PA AXEL H HORNS IS PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR ENCRYPTED E-MAIL MESSAGES USING PGP OR PGP COMPATIBLE FORMATS. THE PGP PUBLIC KEY FOR PA AXEL H HORNS IS AVAILABLE
HERE. THE GnuPG PUBLIC KEY FOR PA AXEL H HORNS IS AVAILABLE
HERE.
Dipl.-Phys. Axel H Horns is Patentanwalt (German Patent Attorney),
European Patent Attorney as well as European Trade Mark Attorney. In particular, he is Member of:
Public Hearing on future patent policy in Europe organised by the EU Commission, the European Patent Office has published three more statements:
